Live data from Hacker News

Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

phys.org

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#21
post #10

How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.

The density falls off pretty steeply at the “edge”, so the exact definition only makes little difference for the radius: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Density-vs-radius-for-a-...

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#22

I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?

I am not an astronomer (save in the very amateur sense), but I think it has to do with Jupiter forming both early in the history of solar system, and, as you guess, beyond the Sun's 'snow line'.

Wikipedia is a good place to start getting a feel for the possible history of the Solar System:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Formation_and_migratio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tack_hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_model

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#23

I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables…

Observations are inherently always about the past.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#24
post #10

How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.

As others note, the definition of Jupiter’s radius is set by where the pressure is 1 bar. This is somewhat arbitrary, but the arbitrariness doesn’t matter much: the pressure drops to 1 micro bar just 320 km higher, which is <0.5% of Jupiter’s ~70,000 km radius.

For comparison, extracting the numbers from the graphic in page 3 of https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/acmg/files/intro_atmo_... 1 microbar on Earth is like 50Km, that is 50/6400 ~= 0.8%

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#25
post #23

I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables…

Observations are inherently always about the past.

That’s true in a narrow sense—every observation records something that has already happened. But in science, observations can be tested, replicated, and used to predict future outcomes. The kind of "research" I'm skeptical of draws broad, causal conclusions about unique, unrepeatable past events where none of that is possible.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Observations are inherently always about the past.

That’s true in a narrow sense—every observation records something that has already happened. But in science, observations can be tested, replicated, and used to predict future outcomes. The kind of "research" I'm skeptical of draws broad, causal conclusions about unique, unrepeatable past events where none of that is possible.

Usually these are predictions made by a model that has explanatory power for things that we can observe. The model might be wrong, or there might be a better model. That’s always the case in science. Observations that confirm a model also increase the credence for its predictions that we can’t directly observe. It means that given our best current understanding of X, it also implies Y. Yes, Y might be wrong, but then that implies that something is likely also wrong with our current understanding of X. The predictions (or retrodictions) aren’t black and white. They always have some associated level of credence, which depends on how well we think we understand the kind of system we are talking about.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#27
post #10

How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.

As others note, the definition of Jupiter’s radius is set by where the pressure is 1 bar. This is somewhat arbitrary, but the arbitrariness doesn’t matter much: the pressure drops to 1 micro bar just 320 km higher, which is <0.5% of Jupiter’s ~70,000 km radius.

Venus would get a slight radius buff, too, if we applied that metric.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#28

I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?

> I assume it is some liquid form of light elements.

Why would you assume that? The heavier elements such as iron are likelier to move to the center of gravity.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#29
post #28

I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?

> I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. Why would you assume that? The heavier elements such as iron are likelier to move to the center of gravity.

I'd assume these elements would be created in the sun and keep close to the sun, because of their higher mass.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#30
post #29
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. Why would you assume that? The heavier elements such as iron are likelier to move to the center of gravity.

I'd assume these elements would be created in the sun and keep close to the sun, because of their higher mass.

All the heavier elements were created in a former star that went supernova. The solar system formed from the gas/dust after that.

The heavier elements being formed in our sun now are going to stay there until something can tear it apart.

Post reply on HN